get_exchange

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context about the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't describe what type of information is returned (e.g., exchange details, trading volumes, fees), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication needs beyond the plan mention. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, defining what an exchange is, and noting the plan requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, the middle sentence about exchange definition could be considered slightly redundant for an AI agent familiar with cryptocurrency contexts.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and plan context but lacks details about return values, error handling, or comprehensive behavioral traits. For a read operation with 2 parameters, it's minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response format and potential limitations. The sibling context suggests this is part of a cryptocurrency data API, but the description doesn't leverage this context fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (uuid and referenceCurrencyUuid). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find information on a specific exchange listed on coinranking' with the specific resource 'exchange' and verb 'find information'. It distinguishes exchanges as 'a place where cryptocurrencies are traded', which helps differentiate from sibling tools like get_exchanges (plural) or get_markets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_exchange_coins or get_exchange_markets.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage context by specifying that it's for 'a specific exchange' (singular) rather than multiple exchanges, and mentions the plan requirement ('ultra plan or higher'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_exchanges (for multiple exchanges) or get_exchange_coins (for coins on an exchange), nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the plan requirement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.